Durham limited in presenting evidence that collusion claims were untrue, judge says

Washington Examiner ^ | Apr 25, 2022 | Jerry Dunleavy

[where's_the_Outrage?]

I'm not a lawyer, but how can limiting the prosecution to present legally obtained evidence be correct?

Amazing.

[DoughtyOne]

This judge should be removed from the case.

You can’t try a person for something a judge has refused the
prosecution to present evidence for, to buttress its claims.

This is like trying a guy for murder, but you are refused to
present evidence there was one, and that the defendant was
in any way related to the murder.

[Oystir]

Because it is irrelevant to whether or not he lied about not having clients.

[Cboldt]

-- ... how can limiting the prosecution to present legally obtained evidence be correct? --

Those facts aren't material to proving the alleged crime was committed.

[Mr. K]

Are you stupid? That’s the ENTIRE case

[CTyank]

Hmmmm...
Durham engineers the basis for the defense to leverage technicalities?

Say it ain’t so.

[Paladin2]

The ‘Rat persecution now is always allowed to disallow any and all defense evidence as “misinformation”.

[DAC21]

So over the weekend all the articles indicating that no way the Clintons cabal / Lawyers would be able to suppress the evidence is now moot. BLOW IT ALL UP.

[Oystir]

no. The case is about lying to the FBI. That’s a yes or no issue. Sorry

[kiryandil]

Obama stooge.

Always have a stooge in the Left place at the Left time.

[Oystir]

If the defense becomes that the lie was not “material” then Durham is going to be ready to present evidence as to what the FBI did or didn’t do with the lie and why it was in reality material. He is prepared to show how damaging the lie was. If Sussman pleads guilty, none of the material/evidence gets released.

[Robert DeLong]

Durham had said if Sussmann “were to concede or decline to dispute the fact that no secret channel of communications actually existed” between the Trump Organization email server and Alfa-Bank, then prosecutors “would not seek to offer proof concerning the ultimate accuracy and reliability of the relevant data.”

I think that is the key to your question.

[eyedigress]

Correct.

Admit you lied and we can move on.

[Eagles6]

Not talking about this ruling, but it seems that Durham is trying to limit the FBI, DOJ & CIA culpability in the coup.

They knew that the whole Russia, Russia, Russia thing was 🦬💩 and who was behind it and were thrilled to play along.

[_longranger81]

No, the case in hand is not that they lied about Trump; this case is about Sussman lying to the FBI about not representing a client when he disclosed the fake info. If he tries to say it was true in court, then Durham can pursue.

I’d like to know if he’s free to tell the rest of the truth outside of the court case later, as part of his report. It’s likely to mostly come out in (pray for it) future cases.

[Tunehead54]

"This is like trying a guy for murder, but you are refused to present evidence there was one, and that the defendant was in any way related to the murder."

---

Perfect analogy. ;-)

[ptsal]

The fix is going in.

[Recompennation]

Right
It sounds as if the whole illegally conspired and and with government support as a promoted plot against Trump didn’t even happen if the don’t ask don’t tell agreeing holds.
The swamp in it’s entirety is playing us and that’s dc in toto excepting few?
That giant asteroid fix needed.

[swingdoc]

“...unless Sussmann first tried to argue the collusion claims were true.”

Ok, talk away Sussmann, anything you say in court will further be held against you. Maybe he’d be smarter to just play Mueller’s case summary instead.

Still, what a terrible court decision.

[LS]

Shocked! Shocked, I tell ya.